XPost: rec.arts.sf.movies
From: YourName@YourISP.com
In article , Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw
wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:01:39 +1200, Your Name wrote:
> >
> > If this is indeed working, then so much the brainless imbeciles who
> > claim human beings already know everything and they're moronic belief
> > that anything which doesn't stick to what we already know doesn't
> > classify as "science fiction".
> >
> > Even if it doesn't work as a propulsion system, there's still something
> > happening that scientists don't yet understand.
>
> Magnetic fields are quite well understood, (that's the likely cause of
> the tiny amount of thrust seen in this test).
It's not a "tiny amount of thrust". It's reportedly better than the
standard rockets NASA, etc. currently use, although I don't think it's
any use for actually launching rockets off the surface, only for actual
travel in space.
> The simple fact that _it keeps working even when intentionally broken_
> should be a clue that there is an unaccounted for effect at play, (just
> like the earlier claim of the EM Drive working actually being a thermal
> effect).
Nowhere in what I posted did it say anything about "working when
broken". In fact it specifically said it will work continuously
(without needing to carry fuel) *unless* something is broken.
> Also, the article you quote makes the usual error of confusing "a tiny
> lab at NASA that spends spare time looking into things that almost
> certainly don't work," for NASA as a whole.
It was a professor at a German university who was running the tests
that showed it produced thrust in some unknown / "impossible" way. NASA
was running their own tests.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
